AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B vs Intel Core i7-3960X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-3960X wins every single head-to-head comparison against the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B. Across six Cinebench tests, the Intel part takes the top spot each time, with margins ranging from 3.0% to 4.1%. The most decisive victory comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the i7-3960X scores 102 against 98 for the Ryzen Embedded V1807B, a 4.1% advantage. That is the largest delta in the entire comparison.

Multi-core results tell a similar story, though the gaps are slightly narrower. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel chip posts 722 versus 701, a 3.0% lead. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the score is 3011 versus 2921, a 3.1% margin. The same 3.1% gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, with 7170 against 6957. Single-core results in the newer Cinebench versions also show 3.1% and 3.2% leads for the Intel part: 425 versus 412 in R20 single-core, and 1012 versus 982 in R23 single-core.

What is notable here is the consistency. The Intel Core i7-3960X does not just win by a fluke in one workload; it maintains a roughly 3% edge across both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering tests. The Ryzen Embedded V1807B is never more than 4.1% behind, but it is also never ahead. For users looking at raw Cinebench throughput, the i7-3960X is the clear choice.

The average benchmark score reinforces this picture. The Intel part averages 2037 across all recorded tests, while the AMD part averages 2012. That difference is small, roughly 1.2%, but it is consistent with the head-to-head results. Both processors sit at the 45th percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they are essentially peers in overall standing. The Intel chip's nearest rivals include the AMD Opteron 6386 SE with an average score of 2038 and the Intel Core i7-7700T at 2039, both essentially tied with the i7-3960X. The Ryzen Embedded V1807B's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 at 2015 and the Intel Core i5-8300H at 2005, again very close to its own average.

In short, the data shows a narrow but complete sweep for the Intel Core i7-3960X. No benchmark in this comparison favors the AMD part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i7-3960X scores 7170 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B scores 6957. That is a 3.1% advantage for the Intel chip.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B competitive in single-core workloads?

A: It is close but not ahead. The AMD part scores 982 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 412 in R20 single-core. The Intel i7-3960X scores 1012 and 425 respectively, giving Intel a 3.1% lead in R23 single-core and a 3.2% lead in R20 single-core.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-3960X has an average benchmark score of 2037, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B averages 2012. Both sit at the 45th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes a Radeon RX Vega 11 integrated graphics solution. The Intel Core i7-3960X has no integrated graphics listed in the database.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i7-3960X has 6 cores and 12 threads. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What are the clock speed differences between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B has a base clock of 3.35 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The Intel Core i7-3960X has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The Intel chip boosts slightly higher, while the AMD chip has a marginally higher base clock.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-3960X wins in every recorded benchmark category. There is no test in the database where the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B comes out ahead. That said, the use-case split is more nuanced than a simple sweep suggests.

For users who prioritize raw rendering throughput, the Intel part is the obvious pick. Its multi-core scores are consistently higher: 722 versus 701 in Cinebench R15, 3011 versus 2921 in R20, and 7170 versus 6957 in R23. The margins are small, between 3.0% and 3.1%, but they are present in every multi-threaded test. The Intel chip also has a 6-core, 12-thread configuration compared to the AMD part's 4 cores and 8 threads, which helps explain its sustained lead in heavily threaded workloads.

For single-threaded tasks, the Intel part again wins, but the gap is similarly narrow. The largest single-core margin is 4.1% in Cinebench R15, where Intel scores 102 versus 98. In newer Cinebench versions, the lead narrows to 3.1% or 3.2%. Users who care about lightly threaded applications will still get slightly better performance from the Intel chip, but the difference is unlikely to be dramatic in real-world use.

Where the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B might appeal is in scenarios that do not show up in the Cinebench scores. It has integrated Radeon RX Vega 11 graphics, which the Intel part lacks entirely. For a system that needs a display output without a discrete GPU, the AMD chip has a clear functional advantage. The AMD part also has a much lower TDP at 45 watts versus 130 watts for the Intel chip, which matters for thermal and power-constrained designs. However, the benchmark data itself shows no performance win for the AMD processor.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Intel Core i7-3960X has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are close: 3.30 GHz for Intel versus 3.35 GHz for AMD. Boost clocks are also close, with Intel at 3.90 GHz and AMD at 3.80 GHz.

Thermal design power is a major differentiator. The Intel part is rated at 130 watts, while the AMD part is rated at 45 watts. That is a substantial difference for system designers managing cooling and power budgets.

The socket and platform differ completely. The Intel chip uses Intel Socket 2011, while the AMD chip uses AMD Socket FP5. Memory support also differs: the Intel part uses DDR3 with a quad-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The AMD part uses DDR4 with a dual-channel memory bus, and no memory bandwidth figure is recorded in the database.

The Intel part supports PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only). The AMD part has no PCIe information listed. The Intel chip has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD chip does not. The Intel part has no integrated graphics, while the AMD part includes Radeon RX Vega 11. The Intel processor has a recorded launch MSRP of $990, while no launch MSRP is listed for the AMD part.

Production status also differs. The Intel Core i7-3960X is end-of-life, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B is active. Their release dates are far apart, with the Intel chip released in 2011 and the AMD chip released in 2018.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors spans nearly a decade of design philosophy. The Intel Core i7-3960X is built on Sandy Bridge architecture, specifically the Sandy Bridge-E codename, using a 32 nm process node from Intel. It contains 2,270 million transistors on a 435 mm² die. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B uses the Zen architecture with the Great Horned Owl codename, built on a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries. It contains 4,950 million transistors on a 210 mm² die.

Cache configurations also differ significantly. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 15 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has 128 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and only 2 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip's larger shared L3 cache is a notable advantage for workloads that benefit from a large pool of shared data.

The memory architecture reflects their respective eras. The Intel chip uses DDR3 with a quad-channel memory bus and 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD chip uses DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and no recorded bandwidth figure. The Intel chip's quad-channel setup is unusual for a desktop part and contributes to its higher memory bandwidth.

The AMD chip integrates Radeon RX Vega 11 graphics directly on the processor, a feature that does not exist on the Intel part. The Intel chip instead relies on its 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes for expansion, which is a higher lane count than what is typically found on desktop platforms. Neither processor supports ECC memory according to the database.

The process node difference is stark: 32 nm for Intel versus 14 nm for AMD. Despite the older and larger process, the Intel chip still manages to outperform the AMD part in every recorded benchmark. This is partly explained by the Intel chip's higher core count, larger L3 cache, and higher boost clock. The AMD chip counters with a much smaller die, a more advanced process node, and dramatically lower TDP.

The Verdict

The benchmark data leads to a clear conclusion: the Intel Core i7-3960X is the faster processor in every recorded test. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, with margins between 3.0% and 4.1%. Its average benchmark score of 2037 is higher than the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B's 2012. For users whose primary concern is raw CPU performance in rendering workloads, the Intel chip is the better choice.

However, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B is not without its own merits. It draws only 45 watts compared to 130 watts for the Intel part, making it far more suitable for power-constrained or thermally limited systems. It includes integrated Radeon RX Vega 11 graphics, which the Intel chip completely lacks. It also uses DDR4 memory and a smaller 210 mm² die on a 14 nm process, reflecting a much more modern design. The AMD part is also still in active production, while the Intel chip is end-of-life.

The choice between these two depends on the use case. If the system requires a discrete GPU anyway, has adequate cooling, and needs the highest possible Cinebench scores, the Intel Core i7-3960X is the data-backed pick. If the system needs integrated graphics, low power consumption, and a compact modern platform, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1807B is the more practical option, despite its slightly lower benchmark scores.

The performance gap is real but modest. A 3.1% difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core will not transform a user's experience. What separates these chips is not the benchmark delta but the platform context: one is a high-TDP, high-core-count desktop part from 2011, the other is a low-power embedded processor from 2018 with integrated graphics. The Intel chip wins the benchmark comparison outright. The AMD chip wins on efficiency and integration. The database records no test where the AMD part takes the lead, so for pure performance, the verdict goes to Intel.